aegeis: tectonic evolution - rwth aachen university5aegeis: tectonic evolution / becker, wübbeler...

1

Aegeis: tectonic evolution / Becker, Wübbeler

Aegeis: tectonic evolution

Ivy Becker, Franziska Wübbeler

Field Course “Naxos”

Institute of Structural Geology – Tectonics – Geomechanics

Abstract

The Aegean Sea as part of the Mediterranean basin is affected by the ongoing tectonic evolution

resulting from the Arabia-Eurasia collision. Being located on the overriding north-dipping Hellenic

subduction zone, it undergoes a widespread N-S to NE-SW extension that is still active. It is

considered a backarc extension though the Aegean arc is untypically located in the center of the

extending area which beginning can be dated to the Eocene-Early Miocene times due to a

combination of driving mechanisms that still need further research.

Five main tectonic units can describe the Aegean domain: the Ionian and pre-Apulian nappes, the

Phyllite-Quarzite unit, the Gavrovo-Tripoliza nappe, the Pindos nappe and the Pelagonian domain.

Along with the extension that influenced those units goes the exhumation of metamorphic core

complexes. Magmas related to the backarc volcanism reveal a change in composition over time and

referring to the N-S migration trend of the subduction zone, ranging from high-K calc-alcaline and

shoshonitic magmas (passive continental margin subduction) to low- to medium-K calc-alcaline

(oceanic slab). Furthermore, massive intrude I-type and S-type granitoids and some minor dykes

occur due to the volcanic arc activity.

1 Introduction

The Aegean realm is a geologically very interesting region because of its quite young but complex

geological history, its diversity of structures and the recent tectonic activities. Due to this it has

been the subject of broad research since the early 1970s, both concerning its structural setting and

its geophysical characteristics (Agostini et al. 2010; Gautier et al. 1993). With the development of

geological methods, like more precise seismotectonic and paleomagnetic studies, analysis of the

focal mechanisms of earthquakes or GPS measurements of plate movements, several improvements

for the research process have been achieved recently (Jolivet et al., 2013). Many geodynamic

2


models have been proposed since then, trying to explain the tectonic history (Gautier et al., 1993).

However, many aspects like origin, timing of initiation, geometry or the evolution of the major

extensional features still remain controversial. One of the reasons, besides the complexity of the

tectonic, is the limited numbers of outcrops that are mainly restricted to the islands in the Aegean

Sea. Better possibilities for studying the tectonic provide the coastal parts, overall the West

Anatolien Extentet Terane, which is part of the Aegean region of Turkey. It can be used as a natural

laboratory for studying the dynamics and results of the tectonic activity (Cemen, 2010). Next to

pure scientific interests, research of the regional tectonics has also a general importance due to

recent deformation and the activity of major normal faults that is reflected in many destructive

earthquakes (Jolivet et al., 2013). In summary the region provides a unique opportunity for

studying the complexities of continental tectonics in an actively collisional orogen.

1.1 Location / Regional setting

The “Aegean realm” can be understood as the Aegean Sea with its internal islands and the

surrounding coastal areas of Greek and Turkey (Fig. 1). The Aegean Sea is the northern-eastern

part of the Mediterranean basin. To

the East, it borders on the Turkish

Aegean region in West Anatolia with

the Lycian nappes, the Menderes

massif, the Issmir-Ankara zone and

the Sakarya massif. To the North, it

borders on the Greek Rhodope massif

and to the West on the Vadar

ophiolite belt, the Pelagonian massif,

the Pindos nappe and the external

Hellenides (Agostini et al., 2010;

Jolivet et al., 2013). The present

southern boundary of the whole

realm is the South Hellenic

subduction zone (Gautier et al., 1999).

Several islands and archipelagos are

located within the sea. The biggest

one is Crete in the South of the Aegean

domain. North of the Aegean arc is the Cyclades archipelago that encompasses i.e. Naxos, Delos,

Santorini, Andros, Syros or Mykonos, to mention some of the bigger ones. Further larger islands of

the Aegean Sea are Evia in the West and Icaria, Samos, Chios, Lesbos, Limnos and Imbros in the East,

as well as Samothrace and Thasos in the north Aegean.

Figure 1: Schematic map of the Aegean domain together with the tectonic units and major tectonic structures (Agostini et al. 2010).

3


2 Geological setting

The Aegean Sea as part of the Mediterranean basin is and has been tectonically affected by the

Arabia-Eurasia collision and the resulting north-dipping subduction (Agostini et al., 2010; Reilinger

et al., 2010). The area is located in the overriding plate of the Hellenic subduction zone and is still

undergoing a widespread regional N-S to NE-SW extension with spreading at the Aegean arc. It is

termed as a “backarc” extension even though it is not a typical one, because the Aegean arc lies

right in the middle of the extended domain (Jolivet et al., 2013).

While the Hellenic subduction zone was already active since at least the Late Cretaceous, the

beginning of the backarc extension can be dated back to the Eocene-Early Miocene (Jolivet et al.,

2013; Agostini et al., 2010). The driving mechanisms are still not clear and depending on the author,

the extension is related to slab roll-back of the subducted plate, the westward extrusion of the

Anatolia plate, a post-orogenic collapse combined with slab retreat or a combination of some of

these factors (Reilinger et al., 2010; Agostini et al., 2010). Furthermore topographic models suggest

that the lithosphere is very thin below the Aegean region that also indicates a stronger impact of

asthenospheric flow on the crustal deformation (Jolivet et al., 2013). The extension rate is relatively

low, so that no oceanic crust was generated (Agostini et al., 2010).

The tectonic history (Fig. 2) of the Aegean is complex and has produced a strong heterogeneity in

the crust, like large thrusts, large exhumation shear zones or extensional detachments as well as

deep basins that are mostly offshore (Jolivet et al., 2013; Jolivet, 2001). The areas of Basin and

Figure 2: Tectonic map of the Aegaeis showing the major structures like the subduction zone and the trenches together with the metamorphic massifs (pink).

Structures: AG=Alasehir Graben; BMG = Buyuk Menderes Graben; CMM = Central Menderes Massif; DF = Datca Fault; HA = Hellenic Arc; IAS = Izmir–Ankara Suture; IPS = Intra-Pontide Suture; LN = Lycian Nappes; NAFZ = North Anatolian Fault Zone, NMM = Northern Menderes Massif; SMM = Southern Menderes Massif; SWASZ = Southwest Anatolian Shear Zone (Cemen, 2010).

4


Range and the Turkish Aegean region are similar in their Moho depth (~30 km), fault spacing (~20-

40 km), extensional throw (>4 km), and inherited crustal heterogeneity. However, strain, erosion

and sedimentation rates are much higher in the Aegean region in western Anatolia (Cemen, 2010).

The northern part of the Aegean domain is dominated by the North Aegean Trough (NAT), a narrow

highly subsiding transtensional domain that is mostly situated offshore (Jolivet et al., 2013). Two

main active fault zones are recognized here, which are part of the NAT fault system. Because of its

offshore location no reliable data exists to constrain the age of initiation of this NAT fault system.

However, the large Xanthi Fault in the Rhodope is suggested to belong also to the NAT fault system

and can be used for getting further information (Gautier et al., 1999). The NAT is also interpreted to

be the western prolongation of the North Anatolian Fault (NAF) which is a large active dextral fault,

mainly in northern Anatolia, that formed some 2 to 5 Ma ago (Jolivet et al., 2013; Gautier et al.,

1999; Jolivet, 2001).

Finite stretching and crustal thinning appears stronger in the central Aegean that is dominated by

the Cyclade archipelago. A large part of that finite stretching was accommodated by the North

Cyclic Detachment System (NCDS) and the West Cyclic Detachment System (WCDS). The NCDS

extends from offshore Mount Olympos to the northern Cyclades and is further east probably

continued by the Simav Detachment in Turkey. It has been active as a post-orogenic detachment

between about 32 Ma until 8 Ma and was originally the thrust contact between the Pelagonian

domain together with the Vadar ophiolithe and the Cyclacic Blueschists. The WCDS is a conjugate

south-dippping detachment in the southwestern part of the Cyclades (Jolivet et al., 2013).

Extension at the Cyclades is also recorded in Oligo-Miocene metamorphic core complexes that are

known as the Cycladic Massif, the Central Aegean cystralline complex, the Median Aegean

crystalline belt or the Attic-Cycladic Composite Unit (ACCU) as the most general term. Most of the

Cycladic islands like Naxos or Tinos, Attica and southern Evia together with the islands of Ikaria

and Samos belong to this complex (Hejl et al., 2003, Jolivet 2001). These Cordilleran-type

metamorphic core complexes of HP-LT or HT-LP type can also be found in the Rhodope massif, the

Menderes massif, Crete and the Olympus Mountain (Jolivet et al., 2013; Gautier et al., 1999). They

represent concentrated zones of crustal extension both in the Basin and Range and the Aegean

region and have been exposed by two phases of exhumation below crustal-scale detachments faults

and extensional ductile shear zones in the backarc domain and in the accretionary wedge (Jolivet et

al., 2013; Cemen, 2010; Jolivet, 2001).

In Crete, in the south of the Aegean domain, extension has also generated large E-W trending

normal faults (Gautier et al., 1999). The Southwest of the domain is dominated by the Hellenides

fold-and thrust belt with the Central Hellenic Shear zone and the Corith rift, that can both also be

seen as a further west prolongation of the NAF (Jolivet et al., 2013). In the area of the Mount

Olympus, a system of km-scale low-dipping to high-dipping normal faults have been identified that

have taken up as much as 8 km of denudation of the underlying metamorphic rocks. The Menderes

5


Massif in the Southeast is tectonically affected by two main E-W trending grabens (Gautier et al.,

1999).

The southward migration of the subduction zone led to the evolution of arc magmatism and to the

formation of I-type plutons from Eocene to middle Miocene (Jolivet et al., 2013). According to

Jolivet et al. (2013) five different types can be identified due to their chemical composition: (1) The

Aegean arc and some volcanic rocks in Thrace show arc calc-alkaline volcanism with minor

tholeiitic component, (2) the northern Aegean and western Anatolia show shoshonitic volcanic

products, (3) in eastern Aegean and western Anatolia can be found backarc basalt and in the

western Aegean and western Rhodope trachytic rocks, (4) Evia, Skyros and Chios are characterized

by high-Mg rock that show affinities with adakites and (5) in Western Anatolia can also be found

Alkali volcanism.

2.1 Tectonic units

There are five paleogeographic domains remaining from the continental collision that make up the

area of the Aegaeis. Due to the southward evolution trend, those units can be differentiated from

south to north and those local distributions equal the evolution over time. Therefore, the five units

are from south to north or from bottom to top: Two nappes that are called the Ionian and the pre-

Apulian containing a Mesozoic carbonate sequence and Oligocene-Miocene turbidites are known as

the first unit. This is overlain by a Phyllite-Quarzite unit with detrital rocks, volcanites and

limestones. The following unit is thought to be the original basement of the previous nappe, it is

made up by a carbonate platform and often found in the tectonic windows of the core complexes. It

is called the Gavrovo-Tripolitza nappe. The following fourth nappe is the Pindos one. It represents

either an oceanic domain or a thinned continental crust with mafic intrusions of Upper Triassic to

Eocene times. This is overlain by the uppermost unit: a continental basement covered by Paleozoic

and Mesozoik rocks and an ophiolithe nappe from the Upper Jurassic make up the so called

Pelagonian domain (Jolivet et al., 2013).

In the Cyclades, several of those units have been give local names and their appearance might

change compared to the regional nappes for example due to different burial depth. The Cycladic

Massif is built of a complex sequence of different nappes. Those nappes represent several tectonic

units (Fig. 3) described in the following. From bottom to top, those units comprise the Basal Unit in

the lowest parts representing the external Hellenides. Those basement rocks are exposed on the

islands of Naxos, Ios and Sikinos. It is followed by the Cycladic blueschist unit, the unit that equals

the regional Pindos nappe, in the Cyclades it can be divided up into three subunits: a Carboniferous

basement nappe lies below a post-Carboniferous shelf sequence and a mélange-like nappe

composing of ophiolithes that lie in a serpentinitic or metapelitic matrix. Exposures of this tectonic

unit are known on Evia, Samos and Tinos. This second blueschist unit is overlain by the Upper unit

which equals the regional Pelagonian domain that can again be divided into three different sub-

6


units. The lowest sub-unit comprises the Lycian nappes, this is overlain by the second sub-unit of

the Cretaceous to Paleogene Vardar-Izmir-Ankara suture zone. The top sub-unit shows the non-

metamorphic composite Cycladic ophiolithe

nappe with an intercalation of Cretaceous

low-pressure metamorphic rocks. Those

tectonic nappes can be overlain by

sedimentary basin infills of younger than

Miocene age (Hejl et al., 2003 and Ring et al.,

1999).

Figure 3: Idealized sequence of the units making up the Cycladic Massif. The Lycian nappes belonging to the uppermost unit are not exposed (Ring et al., 1999).

7


3 Tectonic evolution

The formation of the Hellenides ongoing since Late Jurassic times started due to the closure of the

Vardar ocean in the Late Cretaceous resulting in the subduction of some crustal units of the

Pelagonian in the north and the Pindos Ocean and Apulian block in the south under Eurasia. As the

Aegean region is part of the overriding plate of this subduction zone, it has experienced an

extensional regime since 45 Ma in the north and 35 Ma ago (Late Eocene – Early Miocene) overall

(Jolivet et al., 2013). Tectonic events caused by this orogeny lead to the formation of different

structures resembling evolution steps that will be explained in the following.

3.1 Pre-Paleogene development

The important events that influenced the units overlying the Variscan basement rocks described

above began in the Early Cretaceous. In that time the Pelagonian zone was exposed to subaerial

erosion. Therefore, structures that give evidence of weathering processes as karstification or

lateritic paleosols as well as bauxites can be observed in the rocks of those former surfaces (Hejl et

al., 2003). The following transgression in later Cretaceous times lead to another deposition: Above

the karst horizons, shallow limestones were built up by rudistes in the Late Cretaceous Sea. Those

carbonate platforms began to collapse during Maastrichtian times due to changes in the sea level.

Those changes enable the occurrence of alternating persistent pelagic sediments of down-faulted

areas with erosive karstification surfaces of uplifted areas (Hejl et al., 2003).

3.2 Eocene

The middle to late Eocene at is marked by the final phase of the Subduction of the Pindos Ocean in

the Hellenic subduction zone. This marks the beginning of the Mesohellenic orogeny that initiates

the first exhumation path by rising the HP-LT rocks of the Pindos units (Hejl et al., 2003). During

this first path the Cycladic Blueshist has been exhumed attributed to syn-orogenic exhumation

(Jolivet et al., 2013; Hejl et al., 2003; Jolivet, 2001). The maximal pressure conditions for this

metamorphism occurred 45-40 Ma ago with pressures up to 13 kbar and temperatures of 475°C

comprising glaucophan schists, greenschists and marbles as exposed on the island of Ios though not

on Naxos and Paros due to another metamorphic event overprinting those schists (Hejl et al., 2003).

Accompanied by this, the history of the NCDS starts (Jolivet et al., 2013). Backarc extension is

suggested to start between 30-35 Ma in the northern Aegean region. From 40 Ma to the Late

Eocene/Early Oligocene the extension led to a surge of calc-alkaline volcanism in the Rhodope,

Thrace and in northwestern Anatolia without migration of the volcanic centers (Jolivet et al., 2013;

Agostini et al., 2010). In the vicinity of the volcanic arc the metamorphic core complex (Fig. 4) of the

Rhodope develops (Jolivet et al., 2013).

8


Figure 4: Cross-sections of the three metamorphic complexes in the Cyclades, the Rhodope massif and of Crete (Gautier et al. 1999)

9


3.3 Oligocene to Early Miocene

The second exhumation path with HT-LP conditions evolutes in the north and central domain,

overprinting the older HP-LT stage. Meanwhile, the exhumation of the Rhodope metamorphic core

complex, the Cyclades and the northern Menderes (Fig. 4) is still active. Parallel to the development

further north, Oligo-Miocene blueshists and eclogits were formed in the external arc, Crete and the

Peloponnes in the south near the subduction zone (Jolivet et al., 2013; Jolivet, 2001). The

exhumation is accommodated with the formation of the Aegean Sea by the proceeding crustal

thinning and the formation of sedimentary basins in the hanging wall of detachments. A gradual

evolution from ductile to brittle condition through time can be observed in the extensional regime.

The direction of this Miocene extension is shown by N-S to NE-SW trending stretching lineations

and was bounded in the northeast by the Eskisehir fault. (Jolivet et al., 2013; Jolivet, 2001). The

motion along the WCDS starts, the NCDS is still active (Jolivet et al., 2013). In the northern Aegean

and in northwestern Anatolia, the production of shoshonitic volcanic begins (Fig. 5) and lasts until

the middle Miocene (Jolivet et al., 2013; Agostini et al., 2010). At the northwestern coast of Anatolia

the opening of the NNE-SSE trending grabens starts, associated with Lower Miocene sedimentation

(Gautier et al. 1999).

Figure 5: Schematic cross-section showing the progressive slab dehydration during the Miocene that lead to the formation of calc-alcaline (Calc-Alk), shoshonitic (Sho) and ultra-potassic (U-K) magmas (Agostini et al., 2010).

3.4 Middle Miocene

The last stage of exhumation of HP-LT metamorphic rocks in Crete and the Peloponnes takes place

below the Cretan Detachment. The NCDS is still active in the Cyclades, while thrusting proceeds in

the external Hellenides (Jolivet et al., 2013). Between 10 and 13 Ma the North Anatolian Fault

(NAF) is generated in Eastern Turkey and propagates to the West (Armijo et al., 2004). It has

accommodated up to 80 km of dextral motion since then and seems to have led to the concentration

of the extension in and around the Menderes massif and between the westernmost tip of the NAF

and the Hellenic Trench in the Central Hellenic Shear zone (Jolivet et al., 2013). While Arabien

10


intention starts at around 16 Ma, Anatolia begins to escape westward along the NAF. That leads to

the formation of strong asymmetry in the deformation of the northern part of the Aegean domain,

where mainly dextral shear is now active (Gautier et al., 1999). In Evia, Skyros and Chios the

production of high-Mg volcanic rocks starts. Meanwhile, in the eastern Aegean and in western

Anatolia backarc basalts begin to form till the Quaternary (Jolivet et al., 2013).

3.5 Late Miocene

Faster migration of the western branch of the slab in the astenosphere decouples the Cyclades from

the Menderes massif and the NCDS from the Simay Detachment in Turkey. Along the NCDS, in the

central Cyclades, large displacements are recorded (Jolivet et al., 2013). The NAF reaches its

present location in the Marmara Sea at 5 Ma before entering in the Aegean. While crustal thinning

reached the Cretan Sea in the Late Miocene, the Central Hellenic Shear zone starts to form as a

western prolongation of the NAF (Armijo et al., 2004).

Volcanic activity leads to the formation of trachytic rocks in the western Aegean and the western

Rhodope massif (Jolivet et al., 2013). In the Cycladic massif and the Menders massif intrude I-type

and S-type granitoids and cause contact metamorphism in the host rocks. Those intrusions went

along with ductile extension. Exposed granitoids can be observed on the islands of Naxos (I-type),

Paros (S-type) and some minor apatite dykes can be found on Ios (Hejl et al., 2003; Agostini et al.,

2010). Also starting in the Late Miocene is the intrusion of alkali basaltic lavas (Fig. 6) throughout

the Aegean, Thrace and Western Anatolia, that are characterized by roughly southwards younging

trends (Agostini et al., 2010).

Figure 6: Schematic cross-section showing the formation of potassic-alcali (K bas) and sodic alkali (Na bas) basalts due to the occurring wide extensional regime (Agostini et al., 2010).

3.6 Pliocene to Present

In the Early Pliocene appears the South Aegean volcanic arc, which is still active (Agostini et al.,

2010). This calc-alcaline volcanism is sourced by the asthenosphere. Compared to former arc

11


volcanism activities the geochemistry has changed (Fig. 7 and 8) resulting from a compositional

change of the subducting slab. During the Miocene, the subduction of a stretched passive

continental margin is attended by upcoming high-K calc-alcaline to shoshonitic magmas. That

composition changed to low- to medium-K calc-alcaline magmas raised due to the subduction of an

oceanic slab during the Plio-Pleistocene (Agostini et al., 2010).

12


Figure 7: Map showing the development and distribution of the volcanic intrusions; A is showing the age data of the orogenic volcanics and plutonics while B shows the age data of the alkaline volcanics. C-A = calc-alkaline, Sho = shoshonitic, U-K = ultra potassic, SAAVA = South Aegean Active Volcanic Arc. Stars mark the occurrence of U-K magmas (Agostini et al., 2010).

13


Figure 8: The distribution and different types of magmatism reveal the trend in volcanic activity over time and the change from N to S. Black-grey arrows = subduction-related products; Blue = potassic alkali basalts; Red = sodic alkali basalts; Green = crustal related magmas. C-A = calc-alkaline; HK C-A = high potassium calc-alkaline; Sho = shoshonitic; U-K = ultra potassic; Rhy = rhyolites (Agostini et al., 2010).

4 Conclusion

The tectonic evolution of the Aegean Sea being part of the Mediterranean basin is affected by the

resulting subduction from the collision of Arabia and Eurasia starting in Late Cretaceous times.

Being located on the overriding plate of the Hellenic subduction zone, it experiences a widespread

regional N-S to NE-SW extensional regime that is still active. Though the so called Aegean arc is

located in the center of the extending area, it is referred to as backarc extension but not a typical

one. The backarc extension started in the Eocene-Early Miocene times due to driving mechanisms

that are still not clear today but a combination of processes as the slab roll-back of the subducted

plate, the westward extrusion of the Anatolia plate and a post-orogenic collapse combined with slab

retreat is considered possible (Jolivet et al., 2013; Reilinger et al., 2010; Agostini et al., 2010).

The Aegaeis can be divided in five paleogeographic domains remaining from the continental

collision. From south to north or from bottom to top, these are the Ionian and pre-Apulian nappes,

the Phyllite-Quarzite unit, the Gavrovo-Tripoliza nappe, the Pindos nappe and the Pelagonian

domain (Jolivet et al., 2013). Those units may change locally for example due to different burial

histories and in the Cyclades they were given local names: Three main tectonic units are known to

14


describe the Cycladic Massif built up by a complex series of nappes. The basement is represented by

the basal unit, followed by the Cycladic blueschist unit and overlain by the Upper unit. Those units

can be separated into several minor units referring to age and composition (Hejl et al., 2003 and

Ring et al., 1999).

Those regional tectonic units overlying the Variscan basement were influenced by the tectonic

evolution of the Aegean Sea with its ongoing extension since some 45 to 35 Ma ago. The extension

goes along with the formation and exhumation of the Rhodope metamorphic core complex, the

Cyclades and the northern Menderes (Fig. 9). Furthermore, the formation of magmas that reveal a

change in composition over time is related to the backarc volcanism. From raised high-K calc-

alcaline to shoshonitic magmas as a result of the subduction of passive continental margin in

Miocene times, the composition of magma changed to low- to medium-K calc-alcaline as in the Plio-

Pleistocene an oceanic slab was subducted. Due to the southwestward migration trend of the

subduction zone (Fig. 10), those changes in composition can be observed both in age and trending

from north to south. The occurrence of massif intrude I-type and S-type granitoids causing contact

metamorphism in the host rocks and some minor apatite dykes give also evidence of the volcanic

activity of the arc (Jolivet et al., 2013; Agostini et al., 2010; Armijo et al., 2004; Hejl et al., 2003).

Figure 9: The evolution stages of the core compex formation is shown with the examples of the Patras-Corinth rift revealing an early stage of extension, Tinos that shows an intermediate stage and Naxos-Paros where the formation process already is in a late stage (Jolivet et al., 2001).

15


Figure 10: The southward migration trend of metamorphic, magmatic and tectonic processes is shown in this cross-section of the Aegean from the south (northern passive margin of Africa) to the north (Moesian platform). The location of the metamorphic core complexes is highlighted (Jolivet et al., 2013).

16


References

Armijo, R., Flerit, F., King, G., Meyer, B., 2003: Linear elastic fracture mechanics explains the past and present evolution of the Aegean, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 217 (2003), p. 85-95

Agostini, S., Doglioni, C., Innocenti, F., Manetti, P., Tonarini, S., 2010: On the geodynamics of the

Aegean rift: Tectonophysics, v. 488 , p. 7-21 Çemen, I., 2010: Extensionbal tectonics in the Basin and Range, the Aegean, and Western Anatolia:

Introduction: Tectonophysics, v. 488, p. 1-6 Gautier, P., Brun, J.-P., Moriceau, R., Sokoutis, D., Martinod, J., Jolivet, L., 1999: Timing , kinematics

and cause of Aegean extension: a scenario based on a comparison with simple analogue experiments: Tectonophysics, v. 315, p. 31-72

Hejl, E., Riedl, H., Soulakellis, N., Van den Haute, P. Weingartner, H., 2003: Young Neogene tectonics

and relief development on the Aegean islands of Naxos, Paros and los (Cyclades, Greece): Mittl. Österreichische Geologische Gesellschaft, v. 93, p. 105-127

Jolivet, L., 2001: A comparison of geodetic and finite strain pattern in the Aegean, geodynamic

implications: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 187, p. 95-104 Jolivet, L., Faccenna, C., Huet, B. Labrousse, L. Le Pourhiet, L., Lacombe, O., Lecombte, E., Burov, E.,

Denéle, Y., Brun, J.-P., Philippon, M., Paul, A., Salaun, G., Karabulut, H., Piromallo, C., Monié, P., Gueydan, F., Okay, A., Oberhänsli, R., Pourteau, A., Augier, R., Gadenne, L., Driussi, O., 2013, Aegean tectonics: Strain localisation, slab tearing and trench retreat: Tectonophysics v. 597–598, p. 1–33.

Reilinger, R., McClusky, S., Paradissi, D., Ergintav, S., Vernant, P., 2010: Geodetic constraints on the

tectonic evolution of the Aegean region and strain accumulation along the Hellenic subduction zone: Tectonophysics, v. 488, p. 22-30

Ring, U., Laws, S., Bernet, M., 1999: Structural analysis of a complex nappe sequence and late-

orogenic basins from the Aegean Island of Samos, Greece: Journal of Structural Geology, v. 21, p. 1575-1601

aegeis: tectonic evolution - rwth aachen university5aegeis: tectonic evolution / becker, wübbeler...

Documents